Dennis Mahar wrote:The self is real (conventionally true, i.e., it exists in a dependent reality along with everything else we derive from experience)The self is not real (ultimately true, i.e., it has no essence)The self is both real and not real (conventionally real but ultimately unreal)The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real nor completely nonexistent).

That's the logic.

Yes. This sounds like existential nous to me.

Good catch MV.

So, what we've got is conventional reality (existential) lacks inherent existence, is empty. No person or thing is self-established.

We can nominate causes, like the experience of food poisoning attributable to bad pork. Bad pork is the effect of a prior cause and so on, infinite regress.What we can say is 'intricate web of interconnectivity of references and associations'.

which denies the validity of any philosophical assertion of any kind including that of the attribution of existence and non-existence to anything.Because emptiness depends on person or thing to be empty, emptiness is denied.the emptiness of emptiness.

In that way Void is experienced.it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

A=A becomes ontological.You are identifier, differentiator, reactor.You are putting the boundaries in where none exist.You are projector.Meaning maker.

Diebert wrote: "I do not philosophically acknowledge the concept of any psychological "sickness". Some here do that, but not me. Otherwise I'd already have discounted you as severely afflicted and basically a lost basket case. But with insistant madness lies also a spark."

That is interesting, given the influence of Nietzsche on your views (in any case, so it would seem). One of the core assertions of M. Nietzsche is that we are, indeed, psychological and physiological outcomes of the ideas, conditions, values of our matrix and those that we allow to live in us. Also, the way that 'Buddhism' is operated 'round here, it has always seemed to be presented as the necessarily *psychological* cure for these terrible, unconscious, 'feminized', unmanly conditions we find ourselves in. How could there be a 'nihilism' or a 'decadence' if there is not a clear sense of the psyche, hence the psychological?

But let us state things straight, truthful. You say that you do not resort to this application of psychology, and yet in the above paragraph you have done precisely that! How curious! But are we to suggest that we will actually converse this topic of madness and sanity, of health and well-being, of elation or depression, of a flux of energy that gives life to a man, or the opposite: some*thing* that robs a man of his vitality, his natural wonder, a sense that life opens up before him and he moves through the world with unrestricted force. Is not 'nihilism', in its most basic sense, an affliction of the---permit me---'soul'? Are you and I going to speak about how we actually see ourselves? How we actually feel? Gosh, wouldn't that be an interesting new state of things! How welcome! In contradistinction to the masses of sludge that pass for 'meaningful discourse' around these parts. Would you like me to tell you just how I envision myself?

Still---and again, 'in truthfulness'---since I have known you, you have often exhibited this tendency to resort to a psychological model, and to psychological conclusions. The curious thing for me is that your ire gets aroused most forcefully when I press and keep pressing on my sense of the 'unhealthiness' is aspects of the 'philosophy' that is wielded here, and when I focus on the errors, the omissions. Heavens but can you get testy. But more than that: one feels a knot of violence in you. I will point out to you (though) that if I resort to a psychologizing, it is always intimately tied to a prescription: Yes, there is unwellness, but a wellness can be invited in through:

1) dissolving the harsh, binary tendencies in thinking, 2) becoming more holistic and self-incorporated (i.e. not denying emotions, feelings, as well as love, which is never, ever talked about here but which is yet a core concern for any and every human being); 3) opening oneself to a far more varied reading, which means to open up into language and meaning, and with this to learn to (excuse the ref to M. Nietzsche) become 'fleetfooted', a dancer within this world of meaning, but also far less serious, FAR LESS SERIOUS!

So you see, even if I criticize and amuse myself (endlessly) at your expense, still I remain connected at a core level to the ('real') human issues, if not the real human questions. I don't know if that can be said to be a mark of madness. I rather think it not.

Diebert wrote: "The point of me raising it - and Baudrillard's lingo is not postmodern really but that aside - was to provide a context to my opinions on modern culture. It doesn't satisfy you but I think you asked for them. They're not at all relevant in the context that much but to illustrate here and there. Some good minds might be interested in tracking these side paths, others probably not and why would they. You on the other hand might insist to wrap all philosophy in cultural or social terms but you're doomed from the start. It will go nowhere. You will go nowhere with it apart from exchanging irrelevancies while calling it trade."

Great, we now have the context. And no, it does not satisfy me much because it does not come from your hand. And the way you wielded it was in an attempt to use it as a part of an insult. But no matter. What I am asking for is some talk about how nihilism and decadence have made their claims on you, that is, how you have been affected by them, or suffered under them, and I would also like to hear---in your words and not with quotes from other people---what strategies and tactics you have used to 'cure' them.

I will say---and please correct me if I am wrong and show me how I am in error---that all philosophy is and forever will be 'wrapped in cultural and social terms'. I am but a donkey but I see what is inescapable here. I suggest that it must flow 'logically' that anyone who does not realize this is in truth 'doomed from the start'. And I would throw in here a 'psychological warning', a sort of red flag or a flare: beware of those 'philsophies' that separate from the cultural and the social'. This is pretty basic stuff, man!

Diebert writes: "Then show me a place, forum, site, group or video which is not all these things in some ways and by contrast we might learn!"

But what would you learn, old bean? That 'deceptions, image-management, false-appearances', when they become a part of our 'image-management' and our idea structures marre our expression of ourselves in the world? Yet I don't need to show you this, you have already (inadvertently) discovered it, if not admitted it.

The real question is How then do we become (more) honest?

Diebert wrote: "To reveal "in my own self". Lets first agree on what we're talking about when using words like "decadence" and of course "self". Otherwise you're asking for a walk in the foggy swamp, which you prefer of course since you are like a swamp creature, a will-o'-the-wisp. Reveling in your own self indeed."

Tricky, tricky, most tricky! In your way you are a sharper! You are avoiding the 'question'.

I take no side but my own by the average of definitions exposed, but again just for a little fun i thought i'd poke at a little irony.

Diebert wrote: "To reveal "in my own self". Lets first agree on what we're talking about when using words like "decadence" and of course "self". Otherwise you're asking for a walk in the foggy swamp, which you prefer of course since you are like a swamp creature, a will-o'-the-wisp. Reveling in your own self indeed."

"To reveal "in my own self" :: a=b ; from this you can only speak yourself (quite literally), thusly equating swampiness to a part of you. Furthermore my reply to my insitence upon my futility. However this conversation along with non visual data (loosely language) is substantially redundant through it's essential inaccessibility.

mental vagrant wrote: "I add this with a smile, let's all stop this conversation and conclude our existences by jumping off a high building."

Great! High-flying acrobatics! May I suggest this soundtrack for our flight into space? [As Diebert referred to Lars von Trier, I mention Werner Herzog, who used this tune in his film Stroszek, here BTW is the dancing chicken, and my favorite scene: Bruno and glockenspiel]

With all due respect, whatever you call 'enquiry', I have no interest in. But that is not quite right: rather I would take all the terms or 'enquiry' that you can come up with---those few or handful that drive your perception---and incorporate them into much wider structures, considerations. I know you feel you are onto truly great and important things: this illumination you speak of. I have no reason to take anything away from that nor would I want to. But if what comes OUT of that experience is your level of discourse or your limited range of interest (encapsulated in limiting systems of understanding yourself, ourselves and 'reality'), perhaps you can somehow appreciate how, to me, that looks and feels like backward steps. Your preaching and your Gospel doesn't hold enough, for me. And you are just one more True Believer of a sort of thought-system which again looks regressive, to me.

mental vagrant wrote:I take no side but my own by the average of definitions exposed, but again just for a little fun i thought i'd poke at a little irony.

Diebert wrote: "To reveal "in my own self". Lets first agree on what we're talking about when using words like "decadence" and of course "self". Otherwise you're asking for a walk in the foggy swamp, which you prefer of course since you are like a swamp creature, a will-o'-the-wisp. Reveling in your own self indeed."

"To reveal "in my own self" :: a=b ; from this you can only speak yourself (quite literally), thusly equating swampiness to a part of you. Furthermore my reply to my insitence upon my futility. However this conversation along with non visual data (loosely language) is substantially redundant through it's essential inaccessibility.

Just to be clear on this, it was about the post where Talking Ass wrote: I asked for you to reveal in your own self the destructive effect of nihilism and the symptomology of decadence.

Then again, you did appear to get my metaphor and omnipersonal intention and indeed I equated "swampiness to a part of me". Well done!

Talking Ass wrote: One of the core assertions of M. Nietzsche is that we are, indeed, psychological and physiological outcomes of the ideas, conditions, values of our matrix and those that we allow to live in us. Also, the way that 'Buddhism' is operated 'round here, it has always seemed to be presented as the necessarily *psychological* cure for these terrible, unconscious, 'feminized', unmanly conditions we find ourselves in. How could there be a 'nihilism' or a 'decadence' if there is not a clear sense of the psyche, hence the psychological?

None of the above means one thing or another for causility. In Buddhism all notions of suffering are boiled down to ignorance of causality and emptiness. But even ignorance is the main cause of truth. Causality as such stands above even sickness and health. It doesn't belong to any category or ontology. That's why it cannot be any psychological and physiological "outcome" of any kind. This is why the term "absolute" is applied. Perhaps one could say it's not even "philosophy" then if you'd insist that it would not be comparable.

some*thing* that robs a man of his vitality, his natural wonder, a sense that life opens up before him and he moves through the world with unrestricted force.

Many causes are possible to explain the rise and fall of vitality with the attached moods and desires. It's interesting of course like all sciences are when their insights change the way life is being regarded. But is it really on topic the way you seem to think it is?

Are you and I going to speak about how we actually see ourselves? How we actually feel? Gosh, wouldn't that be an interesting new state of things! How welcome!

But what would it lead to really? At best an open-ended conversation where one might conclude the purpose is actually having that conversation itself, the medium becoming message and purpose, in a sense exchanging for reasons beyond any supposed rationality. Is that really so refreshing? What I'm missing here in your reasoning are the fruits of having lived life attentively and thoroughly enough to have noticed this.

1) dissolving the harsh, binary tendencies in thinking, 2) becoming more holistic and self-incorporated (i.e. not denying emotions, feelings, as well as love, which is never, ever talked about here but which is yet a core concern for any and every human being); 3) opening oneself to a far more varied reading, which means to open up into language and meaning, and with this to learn to (excuse the ref to M. Nietzsche) become 'fleetfooted', a dancer within this world of meaning, but also far less serious, FAR LESS SERIOUS!

Yeah, so become a fantasy and emotion prone woman in short? That's what those types of women would advice but all the while secretly desiring all that harsh 101... (metaphorically spoken)

I would also like to hear---in your words and not with quotes from other people---what strategies and tactics you have used to 'cure' them.

If ones suffering lies into not understanding the specifics of the subject-object relationship of a given age then perhaps studying and understanding those might be a cure? But if ones suffering lies into not understanding "why" things have to be like they are (: their causes) then understanding causality might lead to a cure as well? Although knowing exactly why one is suffering does not automatically relieve it. One needs the capacity as well to transcend it which is not a given at all. One other factor here might be the often hidden desire for suffering. How many people really are seeking liberation anyway? It seems the case most aren't even sure what suffering is, let alone knowing how any "cure" would look like.

Personally, I discern (heh heh: after 'enquiry') that Buddhism (or one should really say 'Buddhisms' since there are many and they are not all in agreement with each other) is incompatable with 'Western processes' (but not completely incomensurate). While 'emptiness' (sunyata) is said not to be synomymous with our own 'nihilism', I suggest that the abstract notion of 'emptiness' (which is part-and-parcel of an extremely metaphysical projection, a subjective perceptive position, a choice) is appropriated by (Western) neo-Buddhists and melded in a strange and deforming way with our own Western mental processes. Therefore, it feeds a variety of nihilism, or perhaps is merely opportunistically destructive? or as I have suggested a 'survival strategy'? (in the face of terrible, mechanistic opposition: the 'true nihilism' of the present).

In this, with this application of 'neo-Buddhism' (I pick up Dennis Mahar by the tail in precisely the same manner as one would pick up a dead rat and thump him down on the table as evidence), all meaning, all value, all conversation that is not specifically circular within these appropriated but misapproriated terms, ceases. Handled in this way by a mediocre, uneducated lout who is also a sort of intellectual terrorist (or perhaps a Vandal?) these ideas are tools and are used in a burrowing manouvre. The Ass Who Talks® begs you to consider and to think through what is suggested with this!

So, even if this (Eastern) notion of sunyata might be considered a pertinent idea and something that could be conversed fruitfully, the way it is handled and employed is tragically flawed. I think that one could expand on this and speak about it a great deal more. Yet this 'it' (the destruction of meaning, the destruction of conversation, the negation of value, while another, subversive value-system is clearly asserted) evinces the capacity to desire to annihilate all critical stances. In this sense. 'it' permits no enquiry!

The Nietzschean idea is useful: One, that Nietzsche considered Buddhism (though flawed in his view and 'decadent' in his sense) he nonetheless recognized that it has a 'noble' object: to relieve suffering. In contradistinction, he despised Christianity since its object is to eliminate 'sin' and so self-creates vast categories of activity and focus that are...absurd on one hand, partial on the other, diverting on yet another, and self-consuming. Yet still I think we need to mention the Nietzschean notion of How the Real World Was Transformed Into a Fable, and why this comes about, in respect to Buddhism. First, the Buddhist ideas originate in Fables. Take The Heart Sutra:

"Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty."

I am willing to consider and look at elaborate metaphors, but I do believe still that we have to realize that these ideas arise from a peculiar form of abstraction, and this abstracted position can be questioned, inquired into. I will also say that this kind of metaphysical and even mythological platform (for looking at reality) must be understood as such. In this sense, 'we' Buddhists of the West seem to go about (merely) replacing one mythological construct, or metaphysical system, with another metaphysical system, but one that has a seeming tendency to feed on, even to devour and render mute, inutile and futile, an ENTIRE structure or path or 'way-of-being' that is 'our own'. In my own case, I do not now nor have I ever felt attraction or sympathy with 'Buddhist' ways of seeing reality. Essentially, it seems to have a tendency, for aesthtic reasons I suppose, to enforce a game of perception as against another, or a group of others. It arises in the Indian context as a rebellion, a redefinition, a reassertion, and in this sense very clearly (from Nietzschean perspective, which is useful here) gives form to (another and unique) Will-To-Power. Again, in these conversations, I submit as evidence (again, taking him by the tail as if he were a dead, infected rat) our own Dennis Mahar. At every turn there is a declaration of a Value: 'it is valueless and meaningless'. One supposes or imagines that the 'value' or the 'thing' being explained and defended is (now) a Supreme Value, in the same sense that (generally) The Buddha is described and perceived as an ultimately incomprehensible center of all possible value, which is a projection of transcendent qualities (and rather typical).

All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.Therefore one should know the prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the prajnaparamita has this spell been delivered. It runs like this:

My impression so far, despite the fact that this sort of scripture can be considered and discussed (though any conversation of it always seem to take place on a non-existant platform, a no-place where everything has disappeared, mysteriously, and where those who dominate the conversation (and its 'meaning')(and note too that one has to rely very heavily on inverted commas! since now there is no real thing! there is no existence even! they all have to be written in mind-fuck: 'existence' 'meaning' 'value' 'self'!), is that any 'conversation' become startlingly circular, a game of a conversation in which he who handles no-value and no-meaning more fluently, or he who makes all the right declarations, 'wins'. It becomes very clearly a game of Assertions, a game of Defenses, and strangely a game of Winning. In this sense one notes the issue of Will To Power. And as M. Nietzsche noted we have to will something, even if it is 'nothingness'!

Diebert writes: "Causality as such stands above even sickness and health. It doesn't belong to any category or ontology. That's why it cannot be any psychological and physiological "outcome" of any kind. This is why the term "absolute" is applied. Perhaps one could say it's not even "philosophy" then if you'd insist that it would not be comparable."

To my mind, there are ideas and meanings and possibilities that can be discussed, with this. I believe I see your point in any case. But I differ with the second sentence, if only because the notion of Causation (as I have seen it handled) is part of a power-play of holding, handling, 'wielding' an 'ultimate' and 'absolute' sense. He who 'handles' this Absolute or some sense of Ultimate or Original or Infinite Causation, controls all sense of meaning, value, etc. It also becomes part-and-parcel of a new form of mysticism, and hinges into numerous mystical appreciations. Again, it all has to do with the way that these ideas are used. This distinction has to date never been registered or considered here, in this place (GF).

[to be continued]

Thus, The Golden Ass,That Master of the Trilokas,Concludes This Morning'sUtterly Valuable,Pithy,Extremely wOndErfULiCioUsand Really Rather JuicyPrajnaparamita-Discourse!All Hail the Ass Who Talks!(And Stay Tuned...Suite a la Prochaine!)(Ladies! I MAY also include HD interactive images of my you-know-what!)(Someone has to compete with Dan the Crooner...)________________________________________________________

PS: Dennis had earlier written:

"OK, you're off the tit,now get back in the womb and stay there!come back fit for inquiry.It's just north of Ass if you can't find it."

The 'meaning' of this was a commentary (I assume) on my posting of a song and a scene from a modern movie. One assumes, though one cannot be sure, that any aesthetic or cultural expression (art in a nutshell) must, by virtue of the supremecy of these doctrines of illumination, freedom and 'Absolute Truth', utterly pale any human expression, any view to the beautiful (however defined, appreciated), and with this every single aspect of human life, human cultural life, human accomplishment, but specifically that of the West, must be seen as 'value-less', irrelevant, unconscious, 'ignorant'. Hence the reference to 'getting off the tit' (Diebert who provides real nourishment through his wonderful, old-European, matron's breast---with Buddhist, Baudrillardian and post-Christian flavored milk!) and crawling back into 'the womb', which is everything except what Dennis (et al) is holding as a Supreme Value. It is this tendency, this noted trait of the GF, that is one its most alarming characteristics: it is a form of terrorism by Vandals: northern hordes who sweep down on the plains for booty...

They are themselves culturally dead and even spiritually dead but they yet 'feed on' living structures. Beware when they set up home in your town plaza!

Talking Ass wrote:... an extremely metaphysical projection, a subjective perceptive position, a choice) is appropriated by (Western) neo-Buddhists and melded in a strange and deforming way with our own Western mental processes. Therefore, it feeds a variety of nihilism, or perhaps is merely opportunistically destructive? or as I have suggested a 'survival strategy'?

Perhaps. Nietzsche categorized Buddhism as a very "late" religion and although healthier than Christianity also nihilistic. One could question his grasp on Buddhism as well as his understanding of Christian theology but there's also this, a hopeful statement by a younger Nietzsche you might appreciate. Or perhaps this one.

Handled in this way by a mediocre, uneducated lout who is also a sort of intellectual terrorist (or perhaps a Vandal?) these ideas are tools and are used in a burrowing manouvre. The Ass Who Talks® begs you to consider and to think through what is suggested with this!

It's the way of all knowing and knowledge. I call it the reversibility, as any idea, thought, form or symbol can flip wit great ease into its reverse, sometimes by ignorance, sometimes just by time or happenstance.

Yet this 'it' (the destruction of meaning, the destruction of conversation, the negation of value, while another, subversive value-system is clearly asserted) evinces the capacity to desire to annihilate all critical stances. In this sense. 'it' permits no enquiry!

Perhaps it's just the age. But the dead of winter and cemeteries have also attraction and beauty. I keep wondering why you're so longing back to summer, like Nietzsche described so dramatically: "After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we - we still have to vanquish his shadow, too". - The Gay Science, (trans. W. Kaufmann), s. 108

the notion of Causation (as I have seen it handled) is part of a power-play of holding, handling, 'wielding' an 'ultimate' and 'absolute' sense. He who 'handles' this Absolute or some sense of Ultimate or Original or Infinite Causation, controls all sense of meaning, value, etc. It also becomes part-and-parcel of a new form of mysticism, and hinges into numerous mystical appreciations. Again, it all has to do with the way that these ideas are used. This distinction has to date never been registered or considered here, in this place (GF).

the notion of Causation (as I have seen it handled) is part of a power-play of holding, handling, 'wielding' an 'ultimate' and 'absolute' sense. He who 'handles' this Absolute or some sense of Ultimate or Original or Infinite Causation, controls all sense of meaning, value, etc. It also becomes part-and-parcel of a new form of mysticism, and hinges into numerous mystical appreciations. Again, it all has to do with the way that these ideas are used. This distinction has to date never been registered or considered here, in this place (GF).

You are doing a power play on it.1 post x 4000 times on it has been distinguished..Do you grant that you have been hammering GF.Does that not constitute power play?

Instead of emotional rambles,can you rationally deal with those issues.They are not boogie men lurking about that one must flee in terror.

Do all things pass?Is it true that no person or thing is self-established?Is there suffering?

I can't see an 'extremely mystical projection'.

Just 3 simple questions for inquiry.

Nagarjuna doesn't deny existence, he is positive about existence ( in no way is he nihilistic).

Nietzsche wrote aphorisms.Stuff you can use as bumper stickers.He was fundamentally a political thinker.Zarathustra as political force.useless to requirements for the chief purpose of GF.

Diebert,you understand that Nietzsche and the existentialists,understood empty (contingent) and meaningless (ultimately insignificant).and in the face of that,argued, that this existence,conventional existence,was for political action,to improve the lot of humanity.

How come Alex has failed to read these people without comprehension of that?

How can anybody without having had the experience of Void have the remotest clue what they're talking about?

There are a few things to go over here. Actually, some pretty important things as I see it. The first, Dennis, is that you do Diebert a disservice when you reduce him to a maternal figure, and one who offers his breast (in mercy, in motherliness) to the undernourished boys. Yet this characterization is not without some accuracy. In contradistinction, and in accord with the character of the persona I present here, I don't give a flying fuck about you and a certain number of the loosers who have made GF their home. And so I show no mercy. Not one trace! I suggest to you that, in truth, this is a far more masculine stance than that of coddler. Also, in this space (GF) one must remain vigilant in respect to 'the mediocre' (I use you as an example because you perfectly illustrate everything that a man of substance MUST avoid at all costs!), and this is as true here as it is 'out there', in real life: we live in an age of ascending mediocrity in which all means (of achieving power, of having his say, of influencing and affecting) have been given to the mediocre man. It is an age in which the mediocre man can chime-in whenever the mood strikes him, and disregarding (as he must) his own vile reflection (incapable of seeing it though he stare directly at it), he fails to see the degree to which he dirties the atmosphere around him. Unfortunately---but very truthfully & honestly---I suggest to one and all that GF (and the founders Quinn, Rowden and Solway) have because of their own failures (this I define as 'mediocrity') allowed the inferior element to wheedle its way in, both into their spirits (as spirited men, as thinkers and as influences in this temporal circumstance), and through what they encourage in their followers. This is despicable and low: vile. The corrective is not an easy medicine to swollow and no one seems to gather, mouths open, to have the bitter tonic stuffed down their gullet. So, what do these Oh So Noble men do? They high-tail it! They run! One only hopes that they make use of the beating they got, and the wounds inflicted, and make the only use that we can of our wounds & our suffering: to become a man (I don't mean this in the macho sense). To become awake, proactive, strong, truthful, resiliant, and in all this (duh!) not to shear off from the core of any man: his heart.

So, Dennis, you are useful to me to a certain point. I realize that in some bizarre sense you have been (Oh God, the thought of it makes my stomach turn!) my 'muse' to a certain degree over a series of posts. Will you toss a coin in my tinker's cup, you cheapskate?

What you do (and this 'you' is plural because it is an activity that is encouraged here on GF) is to dive into and take up with neo- and pseudo-Buddhism, blazon emblems on your little flag of (self)righteousness, and tear off into battle absolutely unprepeared with your sword of Absolute Truth flashing. You comment on things you know nothing about, but even that is not so bad if you also had the will to follow up (behind the wreckage you leave behind) and *understand* what you evidently don't, gain that understanding. In my way of seeing things, strangely enough (discomfiting enough) you are a sort of mirror to David Quinn. You simply do not know, nor will you ever know, just what you don't know, and so there is a terrible, wide HOLE in yourself which (as you play it) you attempt to fill with a referred meaning & value, that of The Buddha or of these Great Teachings---and they ARE great! they ARE considerable! but when you burrow down inside them...you ruin them, you debase them as you debase yourself!). Unfortunately, yet at a much higher level, Quinn does this too. And like you he will likely never make the correction. These men are approaching or are into middle age and show no tendency of flexibility. This is sad. So, please notice that there is no Kind Treatment that is possible here, no friendly taking aside, no helpful & calm whispering in the ear a little bit of advice: when you have taken for yourself Absolute Truth, when you possess it, wield it, adminster it, dole it out, decide with it and on it, you can hear no voice but your own! And so We make the Pronouncement:

To get anywhere on the path of learning & knowing this vile tendency to claim for oneself what one is NOT ENTITLED TO, to dress up like a sage (and one is NOT a sage) must be blown apart from the inside out! Decimated! Brought to ruin! Bring on the Dynamite! Let the Depth Charges Thunder in the seas of False Ego!

And you heard it From The Ass Who Talks® (A Cartoon)Down on Genius ForumWhere It Was Lovingly DeliveredOn Nov. 5th, 2011______________________________________________________

A couple of comments:

To understand, at least a wee bit, why Buddhism is considered by Nietzsche to be 'nihilistic', you'd have to read a wee bit of what he wrote about it. You might not agree but at least you'd have some idea WHY he thought that, and why those ideas have potency and relevancy.

In the West, at a most fundamental level, a level from which 'we' cannot in fact separate ourselves, the 'political' is ALWAYS relevant. I am supposing that this notion extends from the Greek world where philosophy and social life, political life, were seen as inseperable. In my view, it is a travesty that you and your ilk do not have even a shadow of the possibility of understanding these things which are fundamental to our social systems and to ourselves. This is, of course, a commentary on your view that Nietzsche's ideas are suited to bumper stickers. Oddly, though I don't think you intended it, this is true in a certain sense, but what that sense is, and why it is interesting, is beyond you, and I don't have the time to explain it.

'The Chief Purpose of GF'? [cue a donkey's delirious laughter] You are now the Arbiter of this? The Young Deputy in shiny black boots and a cowlick?! Good God Dennis! If there is a Chief Purpose it is a group of Questions about our existence. It is NOT a factory or a clearing house for Philosohical Tracts, and you are a very poor Philosophical Clerk!

In regard to: "Diebert, you understand that Nietzsche [nicely spelled BTW!] and the existentialists, understood empty (contingent) and meaningless (ultimately insignificant), and in the face of that, argued, that this existence, conventional existence, was for political action, to improve the lot of humanity", you seem to evince no understanding of the deep unity of political and social considerations all throughout the 'Western Canon'. What you have done, and this is another example of vileness (IMO) is to divorce spiritual considerations, in all the wide and varied ways that they are relevant and important, from our factual, quotidian, eternal existence within this realm! Quo Warranto!? ('By what authority'!?) You have absolutely no authority to do this, no background, no (real) familiarity with these questions. But you (and you again remind me of David in this sense) have arrogated to yourself such authority, as if you are some sort of Oracle! So again, I say you are an Intellectual Terrorist, your goals and aspirations (in this untransformed and unreceptive state) are in truth incommensurate with the Ideals of truth-seeking, and your influence is that of a Vandal.

Dennis wrote: "How can anybody without having had the experience of Void have the remotest clue what they're talking about?" Once again, such a statement is dripping with what must be called a vile and arrogant assumption, and it is PRECISELY the core Vile Assumption of the founders of GF! You and They assume that you are the only ones in this universe who have pondered these questions, had encounters or experiences or epiphanies that might be called 'spiritual', and you assume that YOUR experience (which never seems to amount to a great deal, in fact) is now paramount to all experiences! And again: with this you blazon your flag and charge off into the world blowing your horn! What Power, I ask, can take you down? What Power will put you (back) on the ground where you belong? What Power can make you HONEST?

These are PRECISELY that 'tragic flaws' that are indulged in here on GF. It is PRECISELY these tendencies and traits that make GF not a place of learning, exporation and reasoning, but a place where a vile travesty is rehearsed!

Those questions: the soul (or soullessness if you wish), impermanence, and suffering, are all valuable, relevant and even core questions, you fool! You (nor the 'Buddhists') do not own or control or moderate or decide ANY PART of the consideration of these questions or the 'answers' that arise from them. And, in unique ways, these questions are very much at the core of the so-called Western Canon.

So, Dennis, you are useful to me to a certain point. I realize that in some bizarre sense you have been (Oh God, the thought of it makes my stomach turn!) my 'muse' to a certain degree over a series of posts.

Yes, I'm getting thru' laddie,can see it,won't be long,keep going.

Rodin,chip, by chip,chipping away at the dense Carrara marble,brings alive a Thinker at last.